> I strongly agree with the concern that v6 addresses could be
> depleted quickly.
>> This problem will never be solved appropriately until you
> impose fees for addresses that increase with the size of the
> block being requested.
Wrong!
We can solve this problem the same way that we solved IPv4
runout. As long as we have IPv9 ready to deploy by 2050,
we can avoid any risks of IPv6 addresses running out. And
because of the timeline, we can address other issues such
as making the minimum MTU 9192, allocating both global unicast
and geographical unicast address ranges, upgrading core routing
to BGP5extensible, integrating the RIR's PKI and identifier/locator
registry into the routing, and so on.
We don't even have to start work on the IPv9 design until
2030 or so, which gives plenty of time for people to gain
large-scale IPv6 operational experience.
--Michael Dillon
P.S. Some problems just melt away when you look up and see
the context. It's like looking down the barrel of a loaded
45 magnum pointed at you by a hardened criminal, and looking
up to see the TV screen in your living room and attached
Playstation 3. What looks like a problem, really isn't one.